In yet another case of Regulators Gone Wild, California legislation may soon restrict the color options for your next car. The specific colors that are currently on the chopping block are all dark hues, with the worst offender seemingly the most innocuous color you could think of: black. What resentment could California possibly harbor against black cars, you ask? Apparently, the Air Resources Board figures that the climate control systems of dark colored cars need to work harder than their lighter siblings, especially after sitting in the sun for a few hours. Anyone living in a hot, sunny climate will tell you that this assumption is accurate. Similar legislation already exists for buildings and has proven successful at reducing the energy consumption of skyscrapers.

So, what's the problem? Paint suppliers have reportedly been testing their pigments and processes to see if it's possible to meet CARB's proposed mandate of 20 percent solar reflectivity by 2016 with a phase-in period starting in 2012, and it's not looking good. Apparently, when the proper pigments and chemicals are added to black paint, the resulting color is currently being referred to as "mud-puddle brown." That doesn't sound very attractive, now does it? Windshields, backlights and sunroofs are also slated to get reflective coatings starting in 2012.

When we first heard of this issue, an internal debate immediately began as to whether this might be an elaborate April Fool's joke. Sadly, it isn't. Read through CARB's complete Cool Cars Standards and Test Procedures here (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/final_cool_cars_workshop_presentation31209.pdf) (PDF link). Thanks for the tip, Joaquin!

!

Sarrah

03-27-2009, 01:15 PM

Within a few years time it will be unlawful to pass gas. I know they don't like cows doing it.
I mean really, how many people have ever heard a cow pass gas?

On this car colour thing. Will cars that are black be grandfathered in? Or will they force all black cars to be painted white? What about the paint? I can't imagine spray painting is a good thing I think that should be stopped. I think painting should be stopped. Stop painting anything and let it be natural. I mean really. If you are going to remove your carbon footie print then lets remove it.

Fiddlerdave

03-27-2009, 01:58 PM

Whatever will our cool-riding gangstas do without black-windowed black-painted cars to cruise in?:laugh:

BirdGuano

03-27-2009, 03:43 PM

I may have to get all of my vehicles painted midnight black, in Nevada of course, to celebrate CARB's insanity. :D

Oric

03-28-2009, 02:49 PM

They are trying to make the color BLACK reflective ???

:lol:

Oric

03-28-2009, 02:51 PM

"Black is the color of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum; they absorb all such frequencies of light. Although black is sometimes described as an "achromatic", or hueless, color, in practice it can be considered a color, as in expressions like "black cat" or "black paint"."

Fiddlerdave

03-31-2009, 01:30 PM

"Black is the color of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum; they absorb all such frequencies of light. Although black is sometimes described as an "achromatic", or hueless, color, in practice it can be considered a color, as in expressions like "black cat" or "black paint"."It is the (non-visible to human eyes) infrared spectrum that carries the most heat.

Being a color black and yet reflecting infrared is not an outlandish thought.

rc

03-31-2009, 04:39 PM

Yep, it sounds like a good idea. And since manufacturers often design their products around California standards, it's fair to assume that the same standards will apply in the other 49 states.

So here in Minnesota, it's likely that I'll eventually have a nice reflective car, courtesy of the State of California. This will reduce emissions, because I won't need to run the air conditioner while I drive around in January (except of course when I have the defroster turned on, in which case the compressor is running).

VT9

03-31-2009, 07:01 PM

So here in Minnesota, it's likely that I'll eventually have a nice reflective car, courtesy of the State of California. This will reduce emissions, because I won't need to run the air conditioner while I drive around in January (except of course when I have the defroster turned on, in which case the compressor is running).

Yup. This something that must come from sunny California. I had a white truck. There were times that snow and ice built up and wouldn't melt. Where as with a dark vehicle that stuff would melt on a 15 degree day.

It's nice to get into a warm vehicle on a sunny sub freezing day. That doesn't happen with light colored vehicles.

Mama Alanna

03-31-2009, 10:04 PM

Snopes is reporting that this is false.

Oric

04-01-2009, 01:39 AM

It is the (non-visible to human eyes) infrared spectrum that carries the most heat.

Being a color black and yet reflecting infrared is not an outlandish thought.

Swimming googles have anti glare coating on them, which wears of with chlorine & salt

I wonder if this is true for this reflective coating as well

Auburn Boy

04-01-2009, 10:00 AM

A whole thread on "BS that no one can see."

:rofl:

I'm surprised that it took so long for a skeptic to show up..,

:lol:

rc

04-01-2009, 10:26 AM

Snopes is reporting that this is false.

But as with most urban legends, it's more fun to continue to talk about it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go send a business card to a poor little sick boy in England. :D

Ought Six

04-02-2009, 01:51 PM

MA:"Snopes is reporting that this is false."No, Snopes is reporting it as 'mostly false'. The state government has been studying the issue, and the initial draft of their regulatory recommendations included requirements on paint reflectivity, though no bans on specific colors. The .pdf link in post #1 above is apparently to a summary of that document. The revised draft dropped that suggested requirement, and is now focused just on window coatings and tints.

So assuming that the original piece in post #1 was sent out before the revised draft was posted, it was exaggerated, but not entirely false. And it is just the kind of thing we have come to expect from the state of Kali.

AB:"A whole thread on "BS that no one can see." I'm surprised that it took so long for a skeptic to show up..,"Too bad you did not do your homework before throwing the 'total BS' label and laughing at everyone (see above). I am afraid your credentials as an 'informed skeptic' just took a serious hit. :D

Fiddlerdave

04-02-2009, 10:52 PM

Given the rhetoric spewed about the specific color, the imminence of a regulations when it is simply being discussed, and the wholeatmosphere of exagerrations, the choice of what this article is between your apologist stance and total BS has to go to "total BS."

This common technique of the Right Wing of taking the most speculative question or tentative comment (like with taxing cow farts!), loading it with exaggeration, outright fabrication, and stamping it with "to be enacted tomorrow" is very old and tedious, but there is no shortage of suckers who love swallow the BS whole.

Ought Six

04-03-2009, 02:27 AM

Fd:"This common technique of the Right Wing...."It never fails! Another tedious episode of the never-ending serial, As The Knee Jerks!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sonny

04-03-2009, 10:38 AM

It's my understanding that High School physics is an "optional class".
an elective?
Is this true?

Sonny

04-03-2009, 11:12 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The California Air Resources Board (CARB) hearing to consider the Cool Cars and Test Procedures regulation of Assembly Bill 32 has been rescheduled for June 25-26. It was originally scheduled for March 26-27.

Assembly Bill 32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act – was established in 2006 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The provision of the legislation referred to as the Cool Cars and Test Procedures regulation is to be in place by Jan. 1, 2010. The regulation is meant to reduce the solar heat gain in a vehicle parked in the sun. A cooler vehicle will decrease the use of air conditioning, thus decreasing carbon dioxide emissions.

The hearing will discuss different approaches, some of which include reformulation of paint, parked car ventilation and solar reflective window glazing.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/ir_image_vehicle.gif

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/cool-paints.htm

Fiddlerdave

04-03-2009, 02:54 PM

Fd:It never fails! Another tedious episode of the never-ending serial, As The Knee Jerks!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:It would be nice to come up with creative and fresh ways to discount yet another sourceless article starting with the phrase or equivalent "In yet another case of Regulators Gone Wild" relating to an event that didn't happen, and very likely will NEVER happen, cast as a protrayal of liberal philosophy, but such conservative fantasy is so easy to spin and fun to crow about, and certainly fills the time that others use to ask questions and try to understand problems and find solutions.

Add another 06 defense and claim of the "mostly accurate" status of these stories because in it, a sentence or two of the whole story actually has a little truth to it.

The true tedium is the knee-jerk world of conservative discourse, those who seems to be capable of no more than distilling meaningless quips from vaporous comments with the sole agenda trying to make it seem their own views have some kind of meaning.

Ought Six

04-03-2009, 04:59 PM

It is still spasming! I think he is going into convulsions! Somebody call a doctor, quick!

:ll: :ll: :ll:

Fiddlerdave

04-04-2009, 09:52 PM

It is still spasming! I think he is going into convulsions! Somebody call a doctor, quick!

:ll: :ll: :ll:
It truly is an addiction for me. Confronted with a flaming ass, the impulse to kick it is just uncontrollable. :laugh:

Ought Six

04-05-2009, 03:14 AM

I could respond in detail, but you are already straying over the line. I will not let you drag me over it as well. I will only say there is no honesty whatsoever in your words, or even your quote of me (taken out of context and morphed from a narrow specificallity to a false generatity, with full intent to deceive). SSDD.

Ross

04-05-2009, 06:36 AM

I do not see what the grievance is Dave.

# The article did say legislation "may" happen.

# The colour black is an issue being seriously discussed
and legislation may result.

# The article is sourced and verifiable.

# It is a subject of public interest that a Journalist
might reasonably report.

What is the beef ?

Fiddlerdave

04-05-2009, 04:42 PM

I do not see what the grievance is Dave.

# The article did say legislation "may" happen.

# The colour black is an issue being seriously discussed
and legislation may result.

# The article is sourced and verifiable.

# It is a subject of public interest that a Journalist
might reasonably report.

What is the beef ?The whole context is utter BS from the first line "In yet another case of Regulators Gone Wild". Well, the regulators ASKED the question, checked the answers and the state of the art, decided it was not cost effective and dropped the issue. That is what regulators are supposed to do. The system worked perfectly.

You may notice the original article has no source. Who and where does Jeremy Korzeniewski publish? When was this actually done? Before or after major news sources identified this issue as a red herring propaganda piece.

The color black was only discussed as one of the problem areas if the regulations were passed, and this sounds like one of the reasons regulations were NOT implemented. The regulators showed good sense.

What takes the cake, though, is 06's "analysis" that even though "Exagerrated" and "mostly false", the original thgread article (despite being BS) is still an authority enough to claim AB "didn't do his homework" and means someone is "not informed" to not believe the right wing hokum.

The standards for accurate information or truth for the right wing blogoshere are esentially non-existant, given this kind of arrogant assertion that "mostly false" (in all the essential issues) does not impugn your world view.

Setting a Paint Standard
- Architectural coatings available in 25- 35% reflective range
- Transferability issues of these pigments
- Development data indicates 20-25% more likely achievable range for dark colors for automobiles
- Jet black remains an issue, even at this levelIf you read the entire .pdf, they go on to talk about requiring reflective paint even for repainting and repairs by 2016. This was the proposal at that time. There is no mistaking that they wanted to require reflective paints, and that 'jet black' did not meet their requirement. At the end of the .pdf, they gave dates and times for public discussion meetings on their proposal. They do not call for public hearings on research. At this point, the research was done, and they were starting the process to make it a binding state regulation. The first step in that process is the public hearings.

My speculation was that the email in post #1 first hit the net at that time, when the hearings were announced. Only when it became public and there was a lot of outcry about it did they pull the paint standards, and that was after the email was already written and sent. Snopes provided a clue that led me to this speculation when they said the email had been circulating on the net for quite a while. Then, Sonny posted the incontrovertable proof that I was dead right. The article he posted, which is a notice about upcoming hearings, clearly states that paint standards were still part of the pending new regulation to be subject to public discussion. Obviously, the email came out when the news first hit, before they pulled the paint standards out of the proposed new law. Virtually everything I said was true, and all of Dave's statements are false. The email was a bit over the top, but was in no way the politically-motivated fabrication Dave tried to wrongly make it out to be.

This is a typical example of Dave basically calling me a liar (among other things) and ranting about his cartoon 'right wing' stereotypes, then turning out to be totally, embarassingly wrong. But I am used to it. I just wish I did not have to waste my time with stupid stuff like this, when all that was needed to see what the facts are is to just read the damn material on the thread. But I know I will be back in this situation again soon, again being ranted at by Dave, and will again have to point out the obvious. It never fails. :re:

Fiddlerdave

04-06-2009, 03:42 AM

My speculation was that the email in post #1 first hit the net at that time, when the hearings were announced. Only when it became public and there was a lot of outcry about it did they pull the paint standards, and that was after the email was already written and sent. Snopes provided a clue that led me to this speculation when they said the email had been circulating on the net for quite a while. Then, Sonny posted the incontrovertable proof that I was dead right. The article he posted, which is a notice about upcoming hearings, clearly states that paint standards were still part of the pending new regulation to be subject to public discussion. Obviously, the email came out when the news first hit, before they pulled the paint standards out of the proposed new law. Virtually everything I said was true, and all of Dave's statements are false. The email was a bit over the top, but was in no way the politically-motivated fabrication Dave tried to wrongly make it out to be.

This is a typical example of Dave basically calling me a liar (among other things) and ranting about his cartoon 'right wing' stereotypes, then turning out to be totally, embarassingly wrong. But I am used to it. I just wish I did not have to waste my time with stupid stuff like this, when all that was needed to see what the facts are is to just read the damn material on the thread. But I know I will be back in this situation again soon, again being ranted at by Dave, and will again have to point out the obvious. It never fails. What a convoluted spin indeed. You can say all of my statements are false, you can say all of your statements are true (like this assertion of some kind of a justifiable timeline!), but neither enforce your view on reality to be true. I invite you to not "waste your time", anytime you wish. Just as I sometimes choose to ignore your fabrications, other times I choose to contend them, which you may notice sometimes happen when you impugn others in your zeal to relate your rather cartoonish "right wing" often stereotypically fact-free assertions, made up of the exact gossamer threads you accuse me of.

"Regulators Gone Wild" is a far more than a bit "over the top", particularly a silly comment for those who have no clue about the regulatory process. The hearings and public comments are for public and further industry and technological input into the process. At that point, it would be remiss to NOT include options in the discussion. Maybe people would forego dark colors to save money, maybe some company has a fine way to make heat reflective dark colors. The process worked exactly as it should, obviously enough comment was made to pull that standard since the colors seem important to people. The wild frothing of the blogoshere and hysterical ramblings of the 06's of the world are unnecessary to an effective discovery process.

Intermediate actions are often found in such a way, such as a warning (if it were the case) that having a dark car is going to cost you 10% more in annual gas mileage in California sun, a fact that would be missed in the usual MPG testing, but responsible buyers may want to know.

Ought Six

04-06-2009, 12:52 PM

People can read the .pdf and the news piece that Sonny posted. The proof is there. How you can try and blindly deny it and continue to call me a liar in the face of the facts telling the exact opposite story is beyond me, Dave. I guess that once you have dug in your heels, admitting error is just not an option for you. So be it. It is your credibility, to destroy as you see fit. Have at it.

SACRAMENTO — California air regulators voted unanimously Thursday for a mandate requiring auto manufacturers to include sun-reflecting glass on all vehicles sold within the state by 2014.

The move by the California Air Resources Board was intended to keep cars, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles cooler during hot weather, reducing the use of air conditioning.

That was expected to improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"The end result of it is the customer gets a car that's more comfortable to ride in, air conditioners don't have to work as hard, and the atmosphere will be happier because we won't be emitting as much carbon dioxide," said board chairwoman Mary Nichols.

The auto industry complained about the expense but won an extra year to comply with the first phase of the regulation. Automakers also will be allowed to find other ways to cool down cars to avoid a tougher window standard to be phased in after 2014.

The board gave automakers more time to meet the standards after representatives for Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC, Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. lined up to ask the board to extend the deadline.

"We don't have a lot of spare resources right now," said Steven Douglas, senior director of environmental affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

California has been a leader for decades in setting auto standards. Its mandates have often brought changes throughout the industry as automakers move to capture the state's huge market.

California was the first state to require the use of catalytic converters in 1975 as a way to reduce smog. A 2002 state law intended to force cleaner auto emissions was the reason the Obama administration implemented greater fuel-efficiency standards earlier this year.

Beginning with the 2012 model year, a quarter of passenger vehicles sold in California must have specially coated windshields that block 50 percent of the sun's heat from a parked car. All vehicles must have those windshields within two more years.

In 2016, windshields must block 60 percent of the sun's heat unless car makers can demonstrate other ways to keep cars cool.

The regulation is projected to prevent 700,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere in 2020, the equivalent of taking 140,000 vehicles off the road for a year. There were nearly 22 million passenger vehicles registered last year in California.

The new windows would cool a sedan's interior by an estimated 14 degrees Fahrenheit or 12 degrees for a pickup or SUV.

The regulation allows glass manufacturers to leave a small area of the windshield free of the metallic coating to boost wireless signals. However, representatives for navigation and cell phone companies questioned whether it would be effective.

Susan Lipper, senior manager of regulatory affairs at T-Mobile USA, said drivers and passengers might be prevented from making emergency calls from their cars.

"If you need to make a 911 call and material in the windshield blocks it, that's an issue," Lipper said.

Drivers who replace windows in older cars also would have to meet the new standards.

The window mandate is among dozens of strategies pursued by the board in its effort to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the goal set by the state's 2006 global warming law.

A proposal to require so-called "cool paints" was removed from the regulation after the auto industry complained it might have to stop selling black cars in California.

The technology used by glass manufacturers to make more reflective car windows has been around for nearly 20 years, said Mukesh Rustagi, director of strategic product management at Pittsburgh Glass Works, the largest automotive glass supplier in North America.